M/S MANISH FINLEASE (P) LTD,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), PATNA

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2010-2011 Manish Finlease Pvt Ltd., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1), Patna Chandi House Exhibition Road, Patna Pan/Gir No.Aaccm 6252 B (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.K.Rastogi & Rakesh Kumar, Ars Revenue By : Shri Indrajeet Singh, Dr Date Of Hearing : 20/06/ 2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 09/08/ 2019 O R D E R Per Bench This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Patna Dated 27.9.2018 For The Assessment Year 2010-2011. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 51 Days. The Assessee Has Filed Application For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons For Not Filing The Appeal In Time Before The Tribunal. After Hearing The Submissions Of The Parties, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Had A Bonafide Reason For Not Filing The Appeal In Time. Therefore, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits.

business premises of the Respondent. The Supreme Court affirmed the essential principle that "if no notice was served within the period, the Income-tax Officer was incompetent to commence proceedings for reassessment under Section 34 of 1922 Act." It was further held that "service of notice under Section 34 (1) (a) within the period of limitation being a condition precedent

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reassessment; such failure cannot be condoned by referring to section292BB of the Act. 4. In the case of CIT Vs. Fomento Finance and Investment(P.) Ltd. [2020] 113taxmann.com 237 (Bombay), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held thatfor block assessment of undisclosed income also, provision of section 142,143(2) and 143(3) of the Act are applicable

DCIT, CIRCLE-4, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reassessment; such failure cannot be condoned by referring to section292BB of the Act. 4. In the case of CIT Vs. Fomento Finance and Investment(P.) Ltd. [2020] 113taxmann.com 237 (Bombay), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held thatfor block assessment of undisclosed income also, provision of section 142,143(2) and 143(3) of the Act are applicable

KUMAR ARUNOSAYA,PATNA vs. A.O., CIRCLE-6, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reassessment; such failure cannot be condoned by referring to section292BB of the Act. 4. In the case of CIT Vs. Fomento Finance and Investment(P.) Ltd. [2020] 113taxmann.com 237 (Bombay), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held thatfor block assessment of undisclosed income also, provision of section 142,143(2) and 143(3) of the Act are applicable

KUMAR ARUNODAYA,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - 6, PATNA [NEW – DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE – 2, PATNA], PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reassessment; such failure cannot be condoned by referring to section292BB of the Act. 4. In the case of CIT Vs. Fomento Finance and Investment(P.) Ltd. [2020] 113taxmann.com 237 (Bombay), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held thatfor block assessment of undisclosed income also, provision of section 142,143(2) and 143(3) of the Act are applicable

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PATNA vs. KUMAR ARUNODAYA, PATNA

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed, the appeals of the revenue is dismissed and the Cross-objections of the assessee are also dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

reassessment; such failure cannot be condoned by referring to section292BB of the Act. 4. In the case of CIT Vs. Fomento Finance and Investment(P.) Ltd. [2020] 113taxmann.com 237 (Bombay), the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held thatfor block assessment of undisclosed income also, provision of section 142,143(2) and 143(3) of the Act are applicable

LOVELY RANI CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, PATNA

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.233, 234 & 235/Pat/2024 &

business entities. Consequently, a warrant of authorization under section 132(1) of the Act, was issued to assessee and others on 06/03/2019. Smt. Saroj Bala was director in two companies M/s Lovely Rani Constructions Private Limited (LRCPL) and Janardana Pharmacy Private Limited (JPPL). The assessee Smt. Saroj Bala is wife of Shri Murlidhar Prasad. Subsequently, notice u/s 153A

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 PATNA, PATNA vs. LOVELY RANI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LTD , PATNA

In the result, ITA Nos.233-235/PAT/2024, ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.233, 234 & 235/Pat/2024 &

business entities. Consequently, a warrant of authorization under section 132(1) of the Act, was issued to assessee and others on 06/03/2019. Smt. Saroj Bala was director in two companies M/s Lovely Rani Constructions Private Limited (LRCPL) and Janardana Pharmacy Private Limited (JPPL). The assessee Smt. Saroj Bala is wife of Shri Murlidhar Prasad. Subsequently, notice u/s 153A

MURLIDHAR PRASAD,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA

In the result, ITA Nos.233-235/PAT/2024, ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.233, 234 & 235/Pat/2024 &

business entities. Consequently, a warrant of authorization under section 132(1) of the Act, was issued to assessee and others on 06/03/2019. Smt. Saroj Bala was director in two companies M/s Lovely Rani Constructions Private Limited (LRCPL) and Janardana Pharmacy Private Limited (JPPL). The assessee Smt. Saroj Bala is wife of Shri Murlidhar Prasad. Subsequently, notice u/s 153A

SAROJ BALA,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PATNA

In the result, ITA Nos.233-235/PAT/2024, ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.233, 234 & 235/Pat/2024 &

business entities. Consequently, a warrant of authorization under section 132(1) of the Act, was issued to assessee and others on 06/03/2019. Smt. Saroj Bala was director in two companies M/s Lovely Rani Constructions Private Limited (LRCPL) and Janardana Pharmacy Private Limited (JPPL). The assessee Smt. Saroj Bala is wife of Shri Murlidhar Prasad. Subsequently, notice u/s 153A

RANJEET SINGH,PATNA vs. ITO, WARD- 5 (5), PATNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

147 of the Act was initiated after obtaining prior approval of the competent authority and a notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 01.08.2018 was generated and issued to the assessee for filing the return of income within 30 days from the service of the notice. But the assessee did not comply to the notice. Subsequent notices u/s

PUNRASAR JUTE PARK LIMITED,PURNEA vs. CIT, PURNEA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Borad

business and is an accommodation entry provider company used for layering of funds. Now it is interesting to note that the assessee has not entered into any transaction with M/s. Ruby Tracom Pvt. Limited and this fact even not disputed by the ld. Assessing Officer. But even then, ld. Assessing Officer has proceeded to carry out reassessment proceeding u/s 147

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD.,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 02.08.2016 by making the following additions/disallowances: (a) Corporate Social Responsibility u/s 37(1) of the Act: ₹30,52,571/- (b) Interest on TDS: ₹46,190/- (c) Deduction on 'Other Income' claimed u/s 801A: ₹66,47,34,169/- The total income of the assessee was thus assessed

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs. ACIT, COR-2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 02.08.2016 by making the following additions/disallowances: (a) Corporate Social Responsibility u/s 37(1) of the Act: ₹30,52,571/- (b) Interest on TDS: ₹46,190/- (c) Deduction on 'Other Income' claimed u/s 801A: ₹66,47,34,169/- The total income of the assessee was thus assessed

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,PATNA vs. ITO WARD 2(1) PATNA, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 02.08.2016 by making the following additions/disallowances: (a) Corporate Social Responsibility u/s 37(1) of the Act: ₹30,52,571/- (b) Interest on TDS: ₹46,190/- (c) Deduction on 'Other Income' claimed u/s 801A: ₹66,47,34,169/- The total income of the assessee was thus assessed

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN.LTD.,PATNA vs. CIT (APPEAL), DELHI

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 02.08.2016 by making the following additions/disallowances: (a) Corporate Social Responsibility u/s 37(1) of the Act: ₹30,52,571/- (b) Interest on TDS: ₹46,190/- (c) Deduction on 'Other Income' claimed u/s 801A: ₹66,47,34,169/- The total income of the assessee was thus assessed

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPN. LTD.,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, PATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 02.08.2016 by making the following additions/disallowances: (a) Corporate Social Responsibility u/s 37(1) of the Act: ₹30,52,571/- (b) Interest on TDS: ₹46,190/- (c) Deduction on 'Other Income' claimed u/s 801A: ₹66,47,34,169/- The total income of the assessee was thus assessed

BIHAR STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD,PATNA vs. ACIT, CIR-2, P)ATNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

reassessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act on 02.08.2016 by making the following additions/disallowances: (a) Corporate Social Responsibility u/s 37(1) of the Act: ₹30,52,571/- (b) Interest on TDS: ₹46,190/- (c) Deduction on 'Other Income' claimed u/s 801A: ₹66,47,34,169/- The total income of the assessee was thus assessed

MAHANT PANDEY,ROHTAS vs. NFAC, DELHI

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

business receipts. DETAILS OF DEPARTMENTAL WORK CARRIED OUT AND CREDITED TO BANK ACCOUNT IS ATTACHED AS PER ANNEXURE A. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in passing the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 without disposing off objections raised by the appellant and without passing speaking